Forum:Straw Men in Campaigns Wikia
Very quickly I'd just like to say that this is a noble endeavor and I look forward to watching it develop over the course of time. That being said, I've noticed that on both of the issues I took time to seriously scrutinize, there were pretty hollow straw man arguments for the assumed conservative positions on those topics, with thorough, much more thought-out replies in counterpoints or in opposing arguments higher up the thread falling in line with a presumed progressive, liberal or libertarian viewpoint. The two examples I cite are the Gay Marriage and Arts issue pages. The problem with this should really be obvious with anyone and I'd suggest that you add an unspoken rule to this community stating that "If you don't actively hold and wish to advocate a given position, please do not presume to speak for that viewpoint." It would really only seek to enrage those who may or may not come later and actually fill that argument in, possibly invalidating a counterpoint that may have previously existed to reply to the straw man argument in the first place. If it is too much to ask that you do not list a presumed institutional position on a given issue, at least please note that this is a Straw Man or a Issue/Viewpoint Stub even, and then have the kindness to not post counterpoints on this issue until someone fills it in so a proper flame war can commence. I mean is it really any kind of intellectual triumph to lightly outline a viewpoint in one or two sentences then spend two paragraphs taking it apart? If this doesn't make any sense or seems stupid, please let me know how this is. Thank you. :Seems like a valid point. However, one of the great things about wiki is that if you see your POV being misrepresented, you are always free to correct it. ^_^ I recommend posting reference links, however, so you aren't also accused of misrepresentation. There are a lot of points of view out there, and a lot of subtle variations. Seems to me (speaking as an unaffiliated newbie) it should be one of the missions of this site to start getting a handle on them. --Woozalia 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :I think it's also worth noting that some issues are raised, by major political players, both individual and organizations, purely for the purpose of being strawmen. The intent is to make the opponent waste time and effort dealing with the dummy issue rather than fight the real issue. "Have you quit beating your wife?" and "Why do you hate America?" (for example) are indications that your opponent is determined to derail your reasoned arguments from the beginning. :So don't whine. Deal. If you've got a substantive argument to replace the straw man, do it. -- ::It's very easy to say "don't whine," but the fact is, just days into this, the mission of INTELLIGENT discussion of politics is being left behind, and what we have here are a series of VERY biased essays that do not advance the agenda of intelligent discourse (I will point out Marijuana, which is a ridiculous example) which clearly has some ginned-up "anti" arguments tagged onto the end, implying they are fallacious. What was/is needed is a proper format or template for these issue-related articles, and some rules (I know, some people hate 'rules') governing the standards expected for introductory comments, as well as for the debate and discourse here. The "hit or miss" strategy employed here will just turn into a pissing match for strong-willed people who will make this a parody of Hannity and Colmes. - Nhprman 05:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::NhprMan, I've just done a first attempt to make the Marijuana page a more neutral format. Please take a look and let me know if a) this is a step in the right direction, and b) what else needs to be done. In fact, if you can find a page out there (or make a page out there) that fits the type of neutrality of perspective you are looking for, please point it out so we can find out if we all agree on what is a desirable end, and perhaps use it as a template for creating some rules or strong suggestions. - Kbal11 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::I like what you did a lot. Very much a step in the right direction. Good work! I added a few anti points for balance, and removed some anti points I think were quite weak. As for a template, there are some good ones. I like the "perspectives" angle of most articles, but I think they are too far down the page on most of them. I created a separate Marijuana/perspectives page that I think should be the norm for articles, especially long ones. Another concept is simply to have an article title and say "what's your perspective?" A page can simply say "Is global climate change real?" and a "yes" or "no" category - or simply have room for a listing of comments without that yes/no dynamic. - Nhprman 19:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC) ::::I like the separate perspectives page. It partially addresses a concern I have over the perspectives approach: it isn't scalable. Having perspectives at the end of the page works when your perspectives are numbered in tens, but would become very cumbersome if they start to be numbered in hundreds. Having them on a separate page helps, but I'm not sure that it solves things. Perhaps a page for 'raw perspectives' and a page where people can draw out representative comments (things that get repeated over and over again) for viewing. I'm open to other ideas on this; scalability becomes an important and difficult problem any time we're asking for mass individual opinions. Thoughts? - Kbal11 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) :::::Yes, that's a good point. On Wikipedia, and on other Wikia, talk pages are often "archived" and I expect that will be the technique employed here once they get very long. - Nhprman 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)